Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Women's Studies International Forum

j ou rna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ws i f

Of heads and hearts: Women in doctoral education at a Canadian University

Sarah WallDepartment of Sociology, University of Alberta, 5–21 Tory Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4

a r t i c l e i n f o

0277-5395/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2008.04.007

S Y N O P S I S

Available online 2 June 2008

The doctoral degree represents an important academic achievement, affording its holder greatpotential to contribute to knowledge development and social and economic change. Thechallenge of undertaking doctoral study, however, can obscure the ultimate benefits ofpossessing a PhD. For women in doctoral programs, the stresses associated with advancededucation can be compounded in distinctive ways. Traditional gender roles and genderedorganizational hierarchies combine to make doctoral education an inherently different processfor men and women. This exploratory qualitative study investigates the unique perspectives offemale, Canadian PhD students in the arts and humanities regarding their programs, researchinterests, supervisors, perceptions of interpersonal and organizational social support, andcareer plans, linking them to the literature on women in academic organizations.

© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The doctoral degree represents the pinnacle of achieve-ment in educational pursuit. Those with PhDs embody hopefor continuing discovery, stewardship of knowledge, teachingof future generations, and national and global social andeconomic well-being (Williams, 2005; Golde, 2006). Yet,despite these ideals, the realities of obtaining a doctoraldegree can make it difficult for students to connect theirexperiences with the greater purposes of their education. Forwomen in doctoral programs, the stresses associated withadvanced education can be compounded in unique ways.Traditional gender roles and gendered organizational hier-archies combine to make doctoral education an inherentlydifferent process for men and women. While there has beensome interest in analyzing and learning about the process ofdoctoral education, there is a limited body of scholarship onthe topic of women's student experiences. This exploratoryqualitative study contributes to the filling of that gap byexamining the perspectives of female doctoral students at aCanadian university.

Theory and research on doctoral education

Generally, the body of literature on doctoral education issmall and there is very little regarding Canadian doctoraleducation. However, when drawing on both the literature onfemale doctoral students and on women who work in paid

All rights reserved.

academic positions, it is clear that gender has a powerfulinfluence on the social organization of higher education.Work, knowledge, and organizations are gendered conceptsthat have relevance to the experiences of women doctoralstudents.

The university, the site of doctoral education, is a bureau-cratic organization in which, as Acker (1990) argues, advan-tage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action andemotion, and meaning and identity are patterned accordingto a distinction between male and female. Organizationalgendering occurs through structures and processes thatmaintain a gendered division of labour (men in the highestpositions of the hierarchy), define labour and knowledge asmale or female (skilledwork asmen's work; unskilledwork aswomen's work), and produce different types of socialinteractions for men and women (men are dominant actors;women offer emotional support) (Acker, 1990). Abstraction,rationality, and disembodiment, typically associated withmasculinity, are other features of gendered organizationalsettings (Acker, 1990; Meerabeau, 2005).

Women in academia tend to report that they are notcomfortable with the academic organizational culturebecause it is seen as constructed by and for men (Leonard,2001; Benschop & Brouns, 2003). The gendered nature ofuniversities is evident when considering the locations ofwomenwithin them. Although about 45% of doctoral students

220 S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

in Canada are women, just under 19% of full professors arewomen and only 13% of university presidents in Canada arefemale (Robbins & Ollivier, 2007). Academic disciplines and,therefore, university departments are gendered as well.Horizontal segregation places women in the ‘softer’ sciences(i.e. biology and the health sciences) and in the social sciencesand humanities, a consequence of the view of ‘hard’ science asmasculine (Knights & Richards, 2003; Letherby, 2003). Thiscontributes to gender inequality in universities because thescientist is typically held up as the abstract, ideal academic(Benschop & Brouns, 2003). Women in the academy represent‘hysteria’ as opposed to ‘reason’ (Meerabeau, 2005).

Achievement in academic settings is defined according tothemasculine approach to career success (Knights & Richards,2003). The university is a meritocracy that disadvantageswomen who are uncomfortable with competition (Letherby,2003; Knights & Richards, 2003) and who fail to comply withthe rules for ascending the organizational hierarchy becausethey work part-time and/or are distracted by children andother personal issues (Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Acker,2001). In an analysis of their own experiences of doctoraleducation, some Canadian doctoral students in psychologyconcluded that graduate school does make it difficult tobalance the demands of both family and work and found thatwomen are constrained in their choice of location for studyand the time they have to devote to it (Barata, Hunjan &Leggatt, 2005). In a major survey of American PhD students,Golde & Dore (2001) found that women are less likely thanmen to desire intensive post-PhD academic positions,preferring instead to pursue employment in communitycolleges or less research intensive institutions. Women whodo opt for academic positions in male-dominated depart-ments have been found to struggle to be included in existinginternal and external social networks, to balance work andfamily, and to be recognized and promoted once in a post-PhDemployment situation (Elg & Jonnergard, 2003). Also, Ulku-Steiner, Kurtz-Costes and Kinlaw (2000) found that women inmale-dominated programs expressed lower academic self-concept, less departmental sensitivity to family issues, andlower career commitment than other students. While theideal academic is expected to be devoted to work on a 24-hour basis (Benschop & Brouns, 2003), women's “time has tobe understood in relation to others' time and daily lives…Thetemporal nature of these others' needs influences women'sown relation to time, and their ability to use it” (Leonard,2002, p. 72). The way that men and women inhabit socialspaces also impacts upon career success. While public spaceshave been associated with men and masculine behaviours,private spaces have traditionally belonged to women (Leo-nard, 2002). Women in academia (as in other careers) areexpected to blend their public and private lives, an approachthat does not allow them to fit into the dominant masculinelife course, thereby affecting their career progression(Armenti, 2000).

The kind of knowledge that women produce also hasconsequences for their success. In the humanities and socialsciences, where there can be contested standards for judgingthe quality and significance of academic work, masculinenorms of judgment, which favour the ‘hard’ aspects ofdisciplinary knowledge production, can take precedenceand disadvantage women in the competition for positions

and resources (Knights & Richards, 2003). Womenwho use orpromote feminist ideas through their work in universities arelikely to be accused of bias and have their research dismissedas trivia; men are not required to justify their interests in thesame way (Armenti, 2000; Letherby, 2003). In their reflec-tions on the experience of doctoral education, Barata et al.(2005) agreed that there were indeed risks to identifying as afeminist in the male-centered academic world. Some womenwho ‘make it’ do so by distancing themselves from otherwomen and from feminism (Bagilhole, 1994 in Letherby,2003).

Women's experiences in themale-dominated academy arecompounded by race and age, among other attributes (Acker,2001; Leonard, 2001; Letherby, 2003). Age and the age ofwomen's children affect their abilities to balance home andwork (Acker & Armenti, 2004). Women of colour in academiaoften experience discrimination based on stereotypes aboutrace (Kenway & Bullen, 2003; Mahtani, 2004; Margolis &Romero, 1998). This discrimination means that many womenof colour in academia have feelings of low respect, whichcompels them to demonstrate competence byworking harder(Kenway & Bullen, 2003). They are also often required torepresent their ethnicity as tokens rather than being valuedfor their knowledge and competence and can be asked todefend against assumptions that they were admitted becauseof affirmative action policies (Margolis & Romero, 1998;Green, 2002; Mahtani, 2004). Where women in general areexpected to conform to a male model in academia, women ofcolour are asked doubly to deny their culture and fit into thedominant model of behaviour (Margolis & Romero, 1998).

Gender issues in the social aspects of doctoral traininghave been addressed by some authors. Overall, researchreveals that the process of obtaining a doctoral degree can bedifficult, uncertain, and isolating (Golde & Dore, 2001;Dawkins & May, 2002; Chiang, 2003, Margolis & Romero,1998), although it is argued that the negative aspects of theexperience can be mitigated by social support (Dawkins &May, 2002) and a healthy student–supervisor relationship(McKinnon, 2004; Ives & Rowley, 2005). Practical support andencouragement from family and friends are vital, especiallysince women hold much of the ultimate responsibility forfamily matters. Yet, higher education has the potential tostrain relationships because of the workload and because itcan fundamentally transform people in terms of their sense ofidentity and the power they possess (Edwards, 1993; Leonard,2001). Continuity, quality, and understanding in relationshipsare concerns that can emerge for female students.

The nature of the ‘healthy’ student–supervisor relation-ship is unclear, however, and research has produced conflict-ing reports on the role of gender in that relationship. It hasbeen theorized that students' expectations of their super-visors are gendered. Female academics are expected to be,and often are, more nurturing than their male counterparts(Knights & Richards, 2003; Letherby, 2003; Meerabeau,2005). Heath (2002), studying PhD students' time with theirsupervisors, noted that female candidates met with theirsupervisors more frequently than their male counterparts,especially during the early stages of their candidacy. Cur-iously, Ives and Rowley (2005) found no apparent genderpatterns in the student–supervisor relationships they exam-ined and Ulku-Steiner, Kurtz-Costes and Kinlaw (2000) found

221S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

that student reports of mentor support were unrelated to thegender of their mentors. These findings are intriguing,especially given that even the choice of supervisor appearsto be gender driven. Research by Acker (2001) showed thatfemale supervisors tend to supervise female students. In herstudy, women were also paired with male supervisors butvery few male students had female supervisors. Clearly, thereis more to be learned about the structure and nature of thesupervisory relationship.

All in all, the literature supports the assertion that womenhave different doctoral training experiences than men. Theuniversity is a microcosm of our gender-stratified society(Acker, 2001). Life is often difficult for women studentsbecause women frequently combine family life and education(school work). As well, it can be contradictory for womenbecause they are prepared for high-status jobs within acontext that does not challenge traditional gender expecta-tions (Letherby, 2003). Despite a beginning foundation ofscholarship pertaining to women's experiences in the processof doctoral education, there are gaps in this body of work thatjustify further study. Much of what we can glean aboutwomen's experiences in academia must be presumed fromliterature about women who are employed in academiccareers. There are very few existing studies of the experiencesof doctoral students, particularly those from Canada. Researchacross several countries reveals many similar student experi-ences but diversity across countries in terms of the structureand nature of doctoral education warrants further study.Because there is evidence to suggest that women's experi-ences differ frommen's, both within and outside of academia,it is important to pursue this topic further.

Research approach

This study was an exploratory qualitative study. Althoughit was not undertaken using distinctively feminist methods, ithas relevance for feminist purposes because it can beconnected to uniquely feminist ideological perspectivesabout the process and goals of research (Letherby, 2003).While it is important to note that ‘women’ are not ahomogenous group and that feminists debate the sources ofmarginalization for women, there are some interests thatwomen share and, in general, all feminists take a criticalposition on the ‘woman question’ (understanding whyinequalities between women and men exist) (Letherby,2003, Weedon, 1997). The goal of feminist research is topromote change and challenge the structures that oppresswomen by “documenting women's lives, experiences, andconcerns [and] illuminating gender-based stereotypes andbiases” (Brooks & Hesse-Biber, 2007, p. 4).

The setting for this research was a large, research-intensive Canadian university. In Canada, universities arepublic institutions. The process of doctoral education beginswith about two years of course work. This is followed by amajor comprehensive examination to test the student'sfacility with disciplinary knowledge. Once the major exam-inations are completed, students move on to the dissertationphase, which is guided by a supervisory committee. Usually,entrance to a doctoral program requires a master's degree.Funding is available from local, provincial, and nationalsources and is generally very competitive. Some financial

support is offered through graduate assistantships, whichinvolve the provision of support to a faculty member for her/his teaching or research.

Recruitment of participants for this study was carried outby advertising in the weekly electronic newsletter of theuniversity's graduate students' association. Women PhDstudents who had completed at least one year of theirdoctoral program in an arts-related discipline were invited toparticipate in an interview to discuss their experiences indoctoral study. The completion of at least one year of theprogram was specified in order to recruit participants withsome experiencewith doctoral study. Ninewomen, ranging inage frommid-20s to late-40s, representing seven arts-relateddisciplines participated in the study. Most were seniorstudents; seven had completed their candidacy exams andone was about to. One had just finished her first year. Sevenwere white and two were women of colour. All had lived inCanada for some time prior to the commencement of theirdoctoral studies. Participants varied by race, class, familysituation, geographical origins, and age, with gender as acommon attribute. While gender will be the central focus ofthis article, any unique issues that are raised by the womenwith respect to their other attributes will be shared. Ethicalapproval for the study was granted by the ethical reviewcommittee of my university department. References tospecific university departments have been removed and thenames of participants have been changed to ensure anonym-ity and confidentiality.

Interviewing allows feminist researchers to tap into theworld of their respondents. Semi-structured interviews areuseful when the research has a specific set of issues andconcerns to discuss (Hesse-Biber, 2003). For this study, semi-structured interviews lasting between 45 and 65minutes wereconducted during June and September of 2006. Respondentswere asked about their work experience and educationalbackground, their reasons for pursuing the PhD, their relation-ship with their supervisor, their perceptions about theirinteractions with departmental administration and universitybureaucracy, their family situations and their level of socialsupport and interaction, their dissertation topics, and theprocess and timelines of their program. As well, each of therespondents was asked to consider whether and how being awoman impacted upon her educational experience. Interviewswere left sufficiently open-ended to allow each individualparticipant the latitude to discuss topics and issues of particularpertinence. At times, they became conversational, when I couldrelate to aspects of the doctoral education experiences thatwere being discussed. Interview data were analyzed by codingwords and phrases in the transcripts and then collapsing theseinto general thematic categories (Mayan, 2001).

Feminist researchers are increasingly interested in con-sidering their own positionalities and the role of the ‘self’ intheir research (Brooks & Hesse-Biber, 2007; Letherby, 2003). Ihave familiarity with and a deep personal interest in thistopic. I came to this study not only because of my generalinterest in women's experiences of their work (includingstudy-as-work) but because of my own specific experiencesthrough the course of my doctoral education. These experi-ences led me to question whether other women in PhDprograms had similar experiences and, thus, I set out toexplore this with others.

222 S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

What the women said

The interviews in this study yielded very rich and cohesivedata, offered by students whowere very reflective andwillingto share information about their experiences. Several themesarose from the interview data including the process ofdoctoral education, social support and role expectations, theorganizational context of the university, and resources andfunding. Gender proved to be important in shaping manyaspects of these students' experiences. These students sawhow or wondered whether gender influenced their experi-ences throughout the process, in their academic and personalrelationships, in balancing work and family, and in planningfor the future.

The process

The process of doctoral studies encompassed the decisionto undertake doctoral education, the choice of dissertationtopic, the supervisory relationship, and post-doctoral careerplans.

Deciding to beginThe process of doctoral education begins with the

decision to enter a PhD program. Indeed, quite often, thechoice of program was related to influences in their socialsituations. For instance, the timing of the beginning Gail'sPhD program was linked to being “at a point where I was inmy personal and family life to be able to think about doingthat.” Given the magnitude and the potential impact of thedecision to undertake doctoral study, it is interesting thatmost of the women in this study selected their programsfor reasons other than those related to the features andreputations of a particular university or program. Having apartner with ties to the university (i.e. a faculty member,PhD student, or post-doctoral fellow) or having a familywith established local ties were some of the reasons formaking the choice of university that they did. Interestingly,family ties were important for students across verydifferent family situations.

I was thinking at the time, I can't go on and do my PhDbecause I would have to leave [this city] and I can't sothere's no question in my mind that until my kids aresignificantly older, I can't leave. (Elaine—married mother)

Similarly, Abby (single, no children, living with parentswho needed her help) decided to continue onwith her PhD atthe same university “because of family and other commit-ments.” Although shewished she had been able to experienceanother university setting, she made the decision to staybecause “as women, you don't have the flexibility to just movewhenever you want. You are really tied to family andrelationships and to caregiving relationships.”

Likewise, the choice of department or program area wasoften the result of social circumstances rather thanuniversity characteristics. The main reason for choosing aprogram was to enter into something interesting, relevant,and flexible, although some chose their PhD program toestablish separate identities from others in their socialnetworks.

In fact, the only reason I chose [mydiscipline]was because Iwanted a little bit of independence in my identity. I think Iprobably would have done [another social science dis-cipline]. I've always found [the discipline I chose to be] alittle bit, like, what the hell is [it] about? So I just wanted tohave an independent identity. (Beth)

Why [the discipline I chose]? Well, I initially wanted to bea veterinarian. I worked with a vet for a few years andeverything, and then [my brother] took over my job. So Istarted looking at what I was good at, and that was Arts,so I just took that. (Annie)

As these students began the process of doctoral education,their decisions about when and where to undertake doctoralstudies appeared to be intricately related to their social andfamily situations.

Research topicSome of these students were working on dissertation

topics that directly involved the study of women. For them,issues are raised when female doctoral students studywomen's topics. The ‘obviousness’ of women studyingwomen was noted but the long-term benefits of under-taking women's studies were also seen. When Elaine startedto work on her dissertation, she was uncertain about hertopic because she thought, “this is not what I want to do. Idon't want to do some thing that can be written off as yetanother one of those feminist, women's studies things…It'sstill very much that women are supposed to do women'sstudies. Maybe I don't want to.” When she discovered thatshe was actually interested in her women's studies topic,she had trouble coming to terms with it: “So that was reallya bit of an issue for me. What happens when I discover that Ireally am interested in this?” Abby expressed hope thatthings would change for future generations of femalescholars so that they would not have to live with the sametensions.

And maybe by the time my granddaughters come into theinstitution, it will be different for them and I think that'swhat carries me through. I'm sure you see how it'sdifferent for our generation of academics than it was forthe first feminists that came in. Their struggle was totallydifferent. They made a way in, eroded a lot, and we'll dothe same. (Abby)

SupervisorsThe decision to pursue a women-centered dissertation

topic came with some practical problems. One student notedthat there is a lack of women professors fromwhom to choosea supervisor. Not only are there generally lower numbers ofwomen professors, there is a lack of experience within thisgroup.

You either work with male professors who are senior oryou work with starting [female] professors so I thinkthat's a real big thing, being supervised by an untenuredprofessor is really difficult because they need to get thosethings on the sheet in order to get tenure. And graduatestudents are not it. (Beth)

223S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

Gail observed that for women in male-oriented faculties,there is an effect on how situations play out “day to day interms of power and how people prepare for how they need tobe.” While most women were generally satisfied with theirsupervisors, several of them perceived a lack of time to spenddiscussing their questions with their supervisors and two ofthe women pointed out their surprise in learning thatsupervisors cannot be friends. Given that women professorsmay be caught between succeeding in a male-oriented worldand mentoring a new generation of academics, some of thesestudents pondered whether having a woman supervisor wasthe best situation. Beth was frustrated with her overloadedsupervisor because “I never see her, which is a problem.Someone said to me the other day, ‘This is why I dropped outof my PhD – relationship problems.’ Well, there is norelationship problem because there is no relationship.”

They also wondered whether women's ways of copingwith gender in their workmight be affecting their supervisoryrelationships.

I don't know if it's because [my co-supervisor is] a womanand I'm a woman because she has another student thatshe supervises, who is a male student. She basicallyadores him and I don't know what's happening. Is it thegender thing or just a personality thing? I actually askedhim about it. ‘She's like this with me. Is she like that withyou?’ ‘Not so much.’ Maybe he's better at dealing with itso he doesn't conceive it as being a problem like I do.(Rena)

Maggie, who was planning to quit her program due todifficulties with her female supervisor, thought that “I wouldlike to have a male [supervisor] next time, I think, because Ithink maybe that would make a difference.”

Gender-differentiated social expectations were noted byCarrie, who pointed out that “men are expected to be Type Apersonalities anyway but women are expected to be differentthan that.” Elaine imagined that her advisor had probablyread a particular book “sitting in a Tuscan villa…He probablyread this first a month after it came out, in a completelydifferent world, in a completely different time,” compared toher reading it “sitting outside my son's junior high [school].”These women perceived that female students could have verydifferent experiences than their male colleagues do and malesupervisors did, in terms of what is regarded as appropriatebehavior and social role fulfillment.

Career plansAs the end of the PhD program approaches for each of

these students, planning begins regarding their post-PhDemployment. As with other stages in the process of obtaininga PhD, the location of future employment was intertwinedwith the employment situation of a partner. While thestudents seemed to be quite happy to negotiate a workablesolution for both themselves and their partners, they werelimited in their choices because of their link to anotherperson.

I guess if I wanted to go to another university, he wouldn'tsay no. It's just my own choice. I married this guy. I wantto be with him. (Rena)

We'll be moving to the States for his work. In [that state]they have lots of colleges and universities and I'm hopingthat I might be able to find work there. (Carrie)

It is of interest that half of the women in this study wereplanning to pursue non-academic careers, primarily with theintention of returning to pre-doctoral professional pursuitssuch as management and consulting. Four of the womenwereexploring the possibility of a ‘hardcore’ academic position,although they were not all fully decided nor fully committedto academia as their ultimate job.

Overall, the participants in this study revealed severalways in which gender was part of their experiences through-out the process of doctoral education. Their programs andtopics of studies, their supervisory relationships, and theirpost-PhD goals were affected in some way by their genderissues.

Social support and expectations

Social support was an important theme for these students.They looked to family, fellow students, and their universitydepartments for the practical and emotional support neededto sustain them through the process of doctoral education. Itappears evident in these interviews that these students drewconsiderable social support from partners and family. Five ofthe ninewomen in this studyweremarried, onewas engaged,one was in a long-term relationship, and one was single butliving with her extended family. (The marital status of oneparticipant is unknown.) All of the women in relationshipsspoke highly of the support they received from their partners,both emotional and practical.

I would say my husband is perfect. He's been excellent.He's incredibly supportive. He lets me do what I want. It'shard because I work at home and he works at home sowe've had to negotiate how that's going to work – whogets what space – but I'll be working all day and he'll say,‘I’ll clean the house’ or ‘I’ll cook supper’ even though I'msitting at home and I feel like I should be doingsomething. It's hard watching him vacuum around yourfeet while you're working but he's been incredibly goodthat way. (Leah)

Interestingly, three of thewomenwere partnered withmenwho had PhDs or were PhD students themselves. This added alevel of empathy to the partner's supportiveness, which hadtremendous benefit for the study participants. Beth felt that herhusband was her main source of support, including verypractical support because “We always read each other's workand talk a lot about this stuff…Having gone through a PhDhimself, he understands.” In a similarway, Carrie felt supportedby her fiancé, a doctoral student in science:

Part of the reason why we get along so well, first of all, weare in different departments so two different worlds. Butat the same time, we've had the same kind of paths, paperdeadlines, candidacy exams so we kind of understand.

Although the women often described supportive, equalrelationships with their partners, some of them (both white

224 S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

women andwomen of colour) were affected by the traditionalgender perspectives of their parents and extended familymembers. These women felt considerable pressure to con-form to established gender norms. They found that their workinvolvement and career aspirations were not understood byothers and that they were required constantly to manage themore conventional expectations of others.

Both of my parents…were very pro-education. And yet, atthe same time, turned around and said, ‘If you have kids,you should be staying home.’ So it was this dual messagethat I was getting: Be successful and have this career pathand yet stay home with the kids. Well, I can't do both.(Maggie)

I mean my husband is very supportive of me being inschool [but] he has to justify to his parents all the time,[traditional European] parents. Every single time theyphoned him they'd say, ‘Have you found work yet?’ andhe'd say, ‘I'm not working, I'm staying at home with thekids while Elaine goes back to school.’ They were happywith me staying home but not him. (Elaine)

And being a [from a very traditional ethnic background], Ifeel like I have to go home and prepare meals andwhatever, and my mother tells me to do that. But I don'thave to do that. (Rena)

The ability to balance work and personal life was also anissue for several of these students. Illness and injury, familyresponsibilities and circumstances, and numerous other diffi-culties that life can bring impacted upon stress levels and thestudents' abilities to cope. Personal distractions detracted fromwork and work stress was transferred to personal life.

That sort of thing [illness] changes your opinion ofyourself from being competent physically to just notbeing…and it's very hard to disentangle the two. So, I'vedefinitely felt extremely stressed at times and down dueto the combined effect of not being physically at yourpeak and then trying to do graduate studies. And then I'mseparated [temporarily, geographically] from my partnerso I think there's quite a few things going on there. But Iguess that's people's lives. They do have lots of thingsgoing on when they're doing PhDs. (Beth)

Abby was distressed by her observations that “we all comewith this rich personal history and all these personal thingsthat are not accounted for.” She felt that “we're not allowed tobe real human beings in academia. It's like you're notsupposed to have a life extraneous to academia.” There wasa sense that the work that women did at home and the eventsof their personal lives were to be ignored and/or separatedfrom their work at university, as if home could be isolated andeducational work could remain ‘uncontaminated’ by personalissues. The study participant who had young children talkedabout how she was just learning to hand over more of theparenting responsibilities to her husband so that she couldworkwithout interruption. Two of the students indicated thatthey had deliberately decided not to have children duringgraduate studies in order to minimize stress.

I think it helps for me I don't have children, I don't have ajob. This is my job. This is my life. This is what I do so I canfocus all my time and energy on that. I kind of feel forpeople who have kids or have a job and can't focus thatmuch. I understand why it takes them longer and whythey have the stress they have. But for me I don't. (Leah)

Maggie's significant distress about having to delaychildren because of doctoral study was a central reason inher decision to quit her program. She was unsure aboutcontinuing her work when she wanted to have a family andwondered “why am I doing a PhD?We certainly couldn't havea family because where would I fit that in?”

Some students reported receiving subtle and not so subtlemessages from their departments about parenting duringdoctoral study, messages that did not sit well with them.Elaine, a mother, felt she was told to “check your children atthe door”, while Abby remembered being told by herdepartment chair, “Don't have babies while you're doingyour PhD.” Her response was shock and anger:

Like, what kind of information is that?! How is thathelpful? How many people end up getting pregnant andhaving babies? What does that say to them? Someonetold me that one in four women grad students ends uphaving an abortion. So, what does that say about theclimate where we can't have children?We have to choose,OK, am I going to have a baby or am I going to have anabortion? Or should I get my degree?

Overall, there was a tension in the lives of the studentsbetween traditional gender expectations and more feministideas about women in careers. For some more than others,there was an ongoing struggle between being traditionalwomen who supported their partners, performed domestictasks, and put having children above all else and being highachieving academic women in a male-dominated environ-ment. Abby remarked that “people who are able to [balancework and family] are very successful in academia and I thinkpeople who struggle with that have a harder time.” She alsofelt that the struggle to achieve this balancewas “never talkedabout publicly because it somehow makes us weak or, youknow. It's never discussed and that's a problem” and that,ultimately, the doctoral students who were most likely tohave success were “those freaking white males.” Somehow,Elaine had found a symbiotic balance between work andfamily that perhaps the others could not see because they didnot have dependent children.

The time I spend with my kids changes the way I thinkabout the work that I'm doing and I see the connection. Ihave so many people tell me, friends of mine, interest-ingly all male, telling me that if I'm so busy as a gradstudent, why am I planting carrots in my garden, out therewith my kids watering the plants. And I say, ‘Because Ihave to do those things to be a good student as well.’ If Istart trying to stop doing creative things at home and as amother it takes away from my work. (Elaine)

Beyond family support, some of the women in this studydid make an effort to become connected socially with their

225S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

peers and, at least on a superficial level, this has hadsatisfactory results. Meeting with friends in the same cohort,attending social functions organized by the student group ordepartment, or attempting to establish a sense of communityamong office mates were among the strategies used.

I really enjoy talking with [fellow students] and some-times we talk about our troubles and what hard times weare having and sometimes some of them will come to meas well. I do find my friends really helpful. Most of themare from the classes that we were in together. (Rena)

However, socializing was also seen as a distraction fromacademic work and family life so, as much as it may have beenappealing to connect with others, it was not seen as a priority.Carrie's peer group planned ‘pub nights’ but “I haven't gone.I've been busy with my dissertation so I couldn't justify fivehours in a bar.” Although Leah's department did organizesome social events, “if my husband's in town I tend not toattend because we don't see each other very often.” Further, aubiquitous underlying sense of competition has led at leastone student to be careful in selecting friends, effectivelylimiting the size of her social network.

You know, you meet really good friends who are reallyinvested in you doing well. But then that's also reallytricky because academia also facilitates these relation-ships of antagonism so the trick is finding those friendsthat you are invested in and who are invested in you. Theyhelp you through. (Abby)

Overall, while these students felt highly supported byclose family, it seems that their doctoral education processwas not a richly social one, due to both structural issues andpersonal choices.

Organizational context

Doctoral education takes place within an organizationalcontext, not always immediately apparent but neverthelesssocially influential.

The university is a powerful institution…and we need tothink aboutwhywe're here andwhatwe're doing andwhattypes of research we do and who we're serving. (Leah)

The female PhD students interviewed in this study hadmade observations about their interactions with otherwomen in the university hierarchy. For example, change inthe ranks of academic administrators was frequent, whereassupport staff (almost exclusively female) remained moreconstant. The support staff had long-term familiarity withdepartmental processes. Rena felt that “the graduate secre-tary, she's great, so helpful” but she also noticed that “whenthey're [support staff] in a good mood they're wonderful butthey can be pretty nasty”, suggesting that, at times, the powertheir knowledge gave them could be exercised inappropri-ately. Carrie saw how “there's all these little politic things likeyou need to make friends with the secretary the first day.”Although she felt that she had been able to “g[e]t on theirgood side right away,” she had also observed how, with fellow

students, “the secretaries are less than helpful at times.”Annie corroborates this by saying:

There's one person who rules over the department. Thegrad secretary. If she doesn't like you, she'll make yourtime there a living hell. She's been there long enough andher position has never changed. She knows the waythings work. But everybody's position changes so if youhave a question…You go see her. She has the power.

Conversely, several of the students in this study conveyedpositive feelings about women they encountered in theuniversity administration. Rena was very impressed with awoman faculty member who had just taken over the positionof graduate coordinator, whose role was to guide and monitorthe progress of the graduate students: “So she has met witheach of the graduate students and discussed their progress.I just admire that so much! ” They also expressed renewedhope for the strategic direction of the university under thedirection of a new woman president. Many believed that thispresident was genuinely interested in PhD students' perspec-tives and concerned about their needs.

She met personally with graduate students and heardeverybody's concerns and listened and asked questions.[She acts] with intelligence and sincerity and I think as astudent I feel like there's a chance for issues to be resolvedwhen we have that kind of leadership. (Elaine)

I saw the president going around and she was talking topeople and she was asking me, what faculty are you in? So Itold her, I really appreciate you puttingmore resources in thearts, we need more for graduate students and she's like, yes,yes,wedo...I felt like shewas listening tome. I like that. (Rena)

Funding

Finally, the students in this studymade note of some aspectsof the funding they received for their studies thatmayhavebeeninfluencedbygender. Studentswere funded through avariety ofsources, primarily national and university level awards andgraduate assistantships [for teaching (TA) and research (RA)].With regard to graduate assistantships, low level job duties andlow hourly wages were mentioned as issues of concern.

Even the whole TA/RA funding is just [crap]. You're paidcrap and you're made to do stuff that, having worked [in ahigh level management job outside of academia], I wasjust outraged. I was being made to photocopy people'sstuff and do data entry, just crap. (Beth)

While funding arrangements and issues varied for severalof these women, Beth's experience with her duties as agraduate assistant may have been due to the fact that she is awoman, who was required to perform support functionsrather than contribute on an intellectual level. As well, oneparticipant suggested that being a woman might haveinfluenced her financial situation in a different way.

And there are all kinds of things that have been disadvan-tages that are being compensated for now like the fact that

226 S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

I'm a woman so I get more scholarships and the fact that Iwas a singlemom for awhilemade it possible forme to havemoremoneywhichmakes youmore successful as a student.Your funding influences somuch your ability as a student…the bottom line is as far as the institution goes, as soon as Ihave money, and the money is attached to me…all of thesudden doors start opening and [they say] ‘What canwe doto make your program happen?’ (Elaine)

A number of the women in this study had opinions aboutthe political context of the university, which has conse-quences for the financial support of some doctoral education.The provincial political context in which this universityfunctions is corporate-oriented and tends to favour science-oriented research. Some of these social science and huma-nities students are disturbed by the imbalance of priorities inknowledge development in this context and they lament thepractical implications of those priorities. It was noticed that“the funding just isn't there [for the humanities] because itsresearch is useless to patent” (Elaine). Rena, whose husband isa scientist “tells me how much his students get. What adifference between the arts and science. The departmentsupervisor [in science] would pay the students quite a lotmore.” Leah agreed with their observations of inequity:

I think [this university] is a difficult place to be mostlybecause [this province] is a difficult place to be. There's alot of targeted research money and a lot of funding goingto certain areas and not into others. I think that makes itdifficult. Especially for somebody in the humanities.

Overall, for these women, social support was most relevantandeffective amongst veryclose familymembers. At the level ofextended family, traditional ideas aboutwomen's roles surfacedand sometimes forced thesewomen to defend their decisions toundertake doctoral study. Daily interactions, responsibilities,choices, support, and approaches to work were seen to beheavily influenced by gender issues,making the road to successin academia a somewhat complicated path.

Discussion

As noted earlier, prior research has demonstrated that menand women have different kinds of experiences in universities.Thewomen in this study raised issues about limits to their choiceof location and program of study and post-PhD employment dueto connections to others, the problematic nature of pursuingfeminist research topics, the possible impact of gender in thesupervisory relationship, and their perceptions of social supportduring their studies. While these women had supportivepartners, they often came up against traditional gender expecta-tions when dealing with extended family. Also, in many cases,they were expected by their departments to leave their personaland family lives ‘at the door’. It is clear from the findings of thisstudy that the women participants perceived gender to be animportant aspect of their educational experience.

For these students, the constant tension between tradi-tional female characteristics and roles, such as caregiving,parenting, and domestic work, and their identities asacademic career women reflects other findings that womenare more directly affected by family planning issues, a forced

choice between caregiver and professional, and discrimina-tion in the work setting (Ulku-Steiner et al., 2000; Elg &Jonnergard, 2003; Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Acker &Armenti, 2004). ‘Good’ students are seen as focused, dedi-cated, and serious and women can be expected to play thisrole to the detriment of their other interests (Sears, 2003;Grant, 1997). However, the strong connection that somewomen perceive, including some in this study, between theirwork and their personal lives is contrary to discourses thatseparate public (work) and private (home/family/personal)spheres, a distinction that is revered in the male-orientedorganizational world (Armenti, 2000; Leonard, 2002). Expec-tations that what happens outside of work should beconsidered as irrelevant to work are especially demandingfor women (Elg & Jonnergard, 2003). Thewomen in this studysupported a blending of public and private lives and wantedto see an acknowledgement of their interconnection.

Personal and professional relationships played an importantrole in these women's experiences in graduate education. Thesupervisory relationship is key to success in a doctoral programbutwas an area of uncertainty for these students. Theywonderedhow much their supervisory relationships were impacted bygender and expressed concerns about the availability andexpertise of their supervisors and the gendered nature of theirinteractionswith them.Women facultymembers canbe requiredto take on greater workloads than their male counterparts andcombine that with an expectation that they be more nurturingand caring toward their students (Armenti, 2000; Lavack, 2002;Elg & Jonnergard, 2003). While it may be generally helpful forwomen students to have a woman supervisor, not all femalesupervisors have the expected empathy or social interactionstyles that students seek (Leonard, 2001). Some adopt values ofcompetitiveness and struggle with how personal supervisoryrelationships should be (Banoub-Baddour, 2002; Acker, 2001).These tensions can affect how female doctoral students experi-ence their supervisory relationships.

Personal relationships are also complicated for womendoctoral students. Even when women have supportive partnerswho can help to mitigate their stress, as many of the women inthis study did, they can also ironically be constrained by familymembers in terms of time and geographical options (Ulku-Steiner et al., 2000; Barata et al., 2005). Time restrictionsmayalsoreduce social connectednesswith peers becausewomen can findit difficult to devote time to social niceties such as care andfriendship in theworkplace (Leonard, 2002). Also, when it mightbe expected that there would be a spirit of harmoniouscollaboration among women in academia, there is a tendencyfor women to compete for recognition and resources, an issueraised in this study, thereby creating conflict among peers(Banoub-Baddour, 2002). Nevertheless, for women doctoralstudents, the importance of being able to balance work andfamily life, to ‘have it all’, and to enjoy group support have beenidentified by other researchers (Elg & Jonnergard, 2003; Barata etal., 2005).

The gendered nature of knowledge and the subsequentlack of support for marginalized forms of knowledge werealso revealed in this study. The women in this research wereenrolled in PhD programs in the social sciences andhumanities, in disciplines that tend to attract more womenthan men (Knights & Richards, 2003; Letherby, 2003).Research in the arts and humanities is funded at a lower

227S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

level than research in the sciences, especially in a context,such as the setting of this study, that values applied researchwith economic implications (Williams, 2005; Kehm, 2006).The women of this study lived with the imbalance in thesupport offered to the arts versus the sciences and also notedthe tensions inherent in pursuing feminist research topics.Funding that comes via graduate assistantships can require atime commitment that distracts from the critical path ofthe doctoral program and can, as expressed in this study,cause women to feel like “an office girl” when they areordered around by supervisors (Acker, 2001). As well,funding that is attached to gender and women's studies,which one of this study's participants mentioned, may carrya stigma that other ‘gender neutral’ and more prestigiousawards do not, despite the necessary financial support theyprovide (Lavack, 2002).

It is interesting to note the different ways inwhich gender isenacted by women in inherently gendered organizations.Leonard (2001) notes that women doctoral students are notlikely to find structural support for women's concerns in theuniversity setting. She suggests, as some of the students in thisstudy have learned, that developing good relationships early inthe processwithwomen in departmental support positions canbe away of garnering the support they need. However, studentsin this study observed that a fewwomen that they encounteredsometimes chose to align themselveswith power by using theirknowledge to maintain their superiority over students. On theother hand, they also expressed hope thatwomen in leadershippositions (i.e. graduate coordinator, the president) mightintroduce change by employing more ‘feminine’ leadershipstrategies such as interacting, reflecting, and shaping ideasaround others' responses (Common, 2002). Although often notrealized, gender is practiced inwork settingswithin a context ofpower, with men holding the most powerful positions. Peopleoften enact their gender roles unreflexively in order to alignwith power (Martin, 2006). This can be true for women inleadership positions as well and assumptions that women inleadership will demonstrate a participatory, feminine orienta-tion have been problematized (Billing & Alvesson, 2000).Further, even if women can enact an alternative managementstyle, there are currently too few women in high-statuspositions in university for there to be the critical mass requiredfor change (Hannah, Paul & Vethamany-Globus, 2002).

As Letherby (2003, p. 38) claims, “in many subjects and onmany levels there has been a concentrated challenge to theorthodoxies of the past”. Conditions have improved for somewomen in universities because of policy reform and societalchange (Acker & Armenti, 2004). There are also ongoingsources of resistance and change and it is important torecognize the ability of women students to counter dominantdiscourses in their educational experiences (Margolis &Romero, 1998; Acker & Armenti, 2004). Some women inuniversity settings have largely positive experiences becausethey have learned to use any apparent disadvantages to theiradvantage or to create an alternative vision of academic life(Lavack, 2002; MacDonald, 2002).

In spite of some positive movement, Acker and Armenti(2004 p. 3) argue that “times have not changed so much thatwe should abandon the effort to expose deleterious workingconditions for women academics”. It is especially important tocontinue this effort with regard to women doctoral students,

whose experiences are not only distinct from those of malestudents' but also from women who are employed inuniversity positions. Women doctoral students can resist toa point but may have to revert to dominant discourses whenthey cannot sustain their feminist ideological commitments(Sears, 2003). Abby, a participant in this study, conveys thecontradictions between focusing on the positive and continu-ing on with critical explorations of the topic:

It's complicated. It's not like I'm an oppressed. I have a lotof privilege. I can use my time whichever way I want. Ihave a lot of flexibility. If I drop out right now, I'll get areally good job and make a really good living. So I can'tever say I'm oppressed but I know that other people havemore advantage in academia than I have because of theirattributes. Gender, race, [research] topic, and class.

Clearly, “not all academics are working from equivalent andneutral conditions” and their personal capacities to resistmust besupportedby institutionaluniversitystructures (Acker&Armenti,2004, p.19). Gender, and its intersectionswith race, ethnicity, andage, as suggested in the findings of this study, has a significantimpact on the nature and experience of doctoral education.

The number of women in doctoral level programs is on therise in Canada (Williams, 2005). This increase coincides withglobal labour market shortages that make the attraction ofmore women academics a critical issue (Benschop & Brouns,2003). In order to attract and retain high calibre womenacademics, it is imperative that more is learned about how tostructure programs to meet their unique needs. Beyond theneed to consider workforce issues, there is great potential incelebrating women's unique contributions to academia(Armenti, 2000). Recognizing that women can demonstrate aqualitatively different approach to academic life opens up thepossibility for fundamental cultural change that can benefit theuniversity and society at large (MacDonald, 2002).

Acknowledgements

My thanks are extended to the Graduate Students'Association of Canada for funding this research project. Iwould also like to thank the reviewers of an earlier version ofthis article for their very kind and valuable feedback.

References

Acker, Joan (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of genderedorganizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139−158.

Acker, Sandra (2001). The hidden curriculum of dissertation advising. In EricMargolis (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 61−77).New York: Routledge.

Acker, Sandra, & Armenti, Carmen (2004). Sleepless in academia. Gender andEducation, 16(1), 3−24.

Armenti, Carmelina (2000). Women academics blending private and public lives.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Banoub-Baddour, Suzan (2002). A nurse educator's experience in academia.In Elena Hannah, Linda Joan Paul, & Swani Vethamany-Globus (Eds.),Women in the Canadian academic tundra (pp. 22−25). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Barata, Paula, Hunjan, Sandeep, & Leggatt, Jillian (2005). Ivory tower?Feminist women's experiences of graduate school. Women's StudiesInternational Forum, 28, 232−246.

Benschop, Yvonne, & Brouns, Margo (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academicorganizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2),194−212.

228 S. Wall / Women's Studies International Forum 31 (2008) 219–228

Billing, Yvonne D., & Alvesson, Mats (2000). Questioning the notion offeminine leadership: A critical perspective on the gender labeling ofleadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(3), 144−157.

Brooks, Abigail, & Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (2007). An invitation tofeminist research. In Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, & Patricia Leavy (Eds.),Feminist research practice (pp. 1−24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chiang, Kuang-Hsu (2003). Learning experiences of doctoral students in UKuniversities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2), 4−32.

Common, Dianne L. (2002). “Bend and you will be whole.”. In Elena Hannah,Linda Joan Paul, & Swani Vethamany-Globus (Eds.), Women in theCanadian Scademic tundra (pp. 33−46). Montreal: McGill-Queen's Uni-versity Press.

Dawkins, Helen, & May, Esther (2002). The lived experience of doing a higherdegree in occupational therapy from the perspective of five graduates: Aphenomenological study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 49,128−137.

Edwards, Rosalind (1993). Mature women students: Separating or connectingfamily and education. London: Taylor & Francis.

Elg, Ulf, & Jonnergard, Karin (2003). The inclusion of female PhD students inacademia: A case study of a Swedish university department. Gender,Work and Organization, 10(2), 154−174.

Golde, Chris (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In Chris Golde, &George Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education:Preparing stewards of the discipline – Carnegie essays on the doctorate(pp. 3−20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Golde, Chris M. & Dore, Timothy M. (2001). At cross purposes: What theexperiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education.Philadelphia, PA: Report prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts.Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 18, 2005 at http://www.phd-survey.org

Grant, Barbara (1997). Disciplining students: The construction of studentsubjectivities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1), 101−114.

Green, Joyce (2002). Transforming at the margins of the academy. In ElenaHannah, Linda Joan Paul, & Swani Vethamany-Globus (Eds.), Women inthe Canadian academic tundra (pp. 85−91). Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press.

Hannah, Elena, Paul, Linda, & Vethamany-Globus, Swani (Eds.). (2002).Women in the Canadian academic tundra Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press.

Heath, Trevor (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students' views ofsupervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41−53.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (2003). The practice of feminist in-depthinterviewing. In Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, & Patricia Leavy (Eds.), Fe-minist research practice (pp. 111−148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ives, Glenice, & Rowley, Glenn (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation andcontinuity of supervision: PhD students' progress and outcomes. Studiesin Higher Education, 30(5), 535−555.

Kehm, BarbaraM. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe andNorth America: Acomparative analysis. In Ulrich Teichler (Ed.), The Formative Years ofScholarsWenner-Gren International Series, vol. 83. (pp. 67−78) London:Portland Press.

Kenway, Jane, & Bullen, Elizabeth (2003). Self-representations of interna-tional women postgraduate students in the global university ‘contactzone’. Gender and Education, 15(1), 5−20.

Knights, David, & Richards, Wendy (2003). Sex discrimination in UKacademia. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 213−238.

Lavack, Anne M. (2002). Disadvantaged? Not I! In Elena Hannah, LindaJoan Paul, & Swani Vethamany-Globus (Eds.), Women in the Canadianacademic tundra (pp. 124−128). Montreal: McGill-Queen's UniversityPress.

Leonard, Diana (2001). A woman's guide to doctoral studies. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Leonard, Pauline (2002). Organizing gender? Looking atmetaphors as frames ofmeaning in gender/organizational texts. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(1), 60−80.

Letherby, Gayle (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. Buckingham:Open University Press.

MacDonald, Geraldine (Jody) (2002). An alternative vision: Creating a lifevitae. In Elena Hannah, Linda Joan Paul, & Swani Vethamany-Globus(Eds.),Women in the Canadian academic tundra (pp. 143−146)). Montreal:McGill-Queen's University Press.

MacKinnon, Jacquelin (2004). Academic supervision: Seeking metaphors andmodels for quality. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(4),395−405.

Mahtani, Minelle (2004). Mapping race and gender in the academy: Theexperiences of women of colour faculty and graduate students in Britain,the US and Canada. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(1), 91−99.

Margolis, Eric, & Romero, Mary (1998). “The department is very male, verywhite, very old, and very conservative”: The functioning of the hiddencurriculum in graduate sociology departments. Harvard EducationalReview, 68(1), 1−32.

Martin, Patricia Yancey (2006). Practising gender at work: Further thoughtson reflexivity. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(3), 254−276.

Mayan, Maria J. (2001). An introduction to qualitative methods. Edmonton, AB:QualPress.

Meerabeau, Liz (2005). The invisible (inaudible) woman: Nursing in theEnglish academy. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(2), 124−146.

Robbins, Wendy & Ollivier, Michele (2007). Postsecondary pyramid: Equityaudit 2007. Retrieved from theWorldWide Web on December 7, 2007 athttp://www.fedcan.ca/english/pdf/issues/Pyramid_and_Notes2007.pdf

Sears, Allison (2003). Of diapers and dissertations: The experiences ofdoctoral student mothers living at the intersection of motherhood andstudenthood. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Ulku-Steiner, Beril, Kurtz-Costes, Beth, & Kinlaw, C. Ryan (2000). Doctoralstudent experiences in gender-balanced and male-dominated graduateprograms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 296−307.

Weedon, Chris (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.

Williams, Garth (2005). Doctoral education in Canada, 1900–2005. Paperpresented to the “Forces and Forms of Changes in Doctoral EducationConference” September, 2005, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from the WorldWide Web on January 15, 2007 at http://www.cags.ca/Portals/34/pdf/doctoral_education_canada_1900–2005.pdf